I think Mil is probably more intuitive, if you were not raised on the good 'ol English standard system. I was, so mils to me are kind of like centimeters, meters, and kilometers - they make way more sense than inches, feet, yards, and miles but lack meaningful context in my "standard" brain. Since MOA exists and is functional, I use it rather than learning a new language.

Mrad is better IMO. If you get an mrad scope you need to have matching turrets. Ranging your target with a mrad scope is very simple. You take the height of the target, multiply it by 1,000 and then divide it by how many mils is takes up in the reticle. For example if your target is 2 yards tall and it takes up 4 mils in the scope then you simply do the equation. 2x1000/4 comes out to 500 yards. If you are going to get an Mrad scope you need to get a first focal plane scope that away no matter what magnification you are on the sub tension will be the same, making ranging the same no matter what. If you get a 2nd focal plane reticle then you will need to find out which magnification the scope is supposed to be on so the mildots will be accurate. As far as the turrets go the mrad is .36 inches per click instead of .25 inches per click at 100 yards. 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1 inch, 1 mill at 100 yards if 3.6 inches. So if you have a MOA scope and an Mrad scope that both have 50 MOA/Mrad of elevation adjustment then the Mrad scope has more adjustment in inches than the MOA scope. With all of that being said I would only recommend an Mrad scope and turrets for somebody that will need the capability to shoot long range and use the ranging reticle. If you are hunting only and will never shoot farther than 4 or 500 yards then get the MOA scope.

If you are hunting only and will never shoot farther than 4 or 500 yards then get the MOA scope.

Oh really, don't tell all the game we have taken at 1000 plus yards with SFP MOA scopes.

In fact ranging any game with a reticle past your 500 yard limit is getting pretty risky. A good laser RF is the best way to go and for me and most others the MOA system is much easier than what you just explained in your post.

Oh really, don't tell all the game we have taken at 1000 plus yards with SFP MOA scopes.

In fact ranging any game with a reticle past your 500 yard limit is getting pretty risky. A good laser RF is the best way to go and for me and most others the MOA system is much easier than what you just explained in your post.

SPF and MOA only for all my Long range shooting to 3000 yards.

Jeff

Umm yeah. MOA is much simpler to learn. Gotta go with the Broz on this one.

__________________
Dan

The 2nd Amendment......America's original Homeland Security.

Ethan Parke........roped the deer in 1953. Put tags in his ears turned him loose then shot him in 1955. Always liked this pic
The story was told to me by his wife who owned the little motel we stayed at on a deer hunt in Malta Idaho about 17 years ago...... Youll never see that again. Just a cool pic of Idaho deer huntin history

Nobody said the moa scopes are bad I just stated that for long range shooting the mrad scopes have more capability. Also I only recommended a FFP scope if you are going to use an mrad scope that away your subtensions will always be the same. A range finder is always good to have but having the ability to range your target through your scope is nice to have if you have to take a shot on the fly. Oh and 3000 yards huh? Wow your one hell of a shot.

Nobody said the moa scopes are bad I just stated that for long range shooting the mrad scopes have more capability. Also I only recommended a FFP scope if you are going to use an mrad scope that away your subtensions will always be the same. A range finder is always good to have but having the ability to range your target through your scope is nice to have if you have to take a shot on the fly. Oh and 3000 yards huh? Wow your one hell of a shot.

You are new here... Jeff shoots off his back deck as a pastime (or out his loading room window)........